How partisan hatred shapes American views of the Black Lives Matter protests and January 6

Americans interpret major political events through a deeply polarized lens, where hostility toward the opposing political party shapes whether they view protests as legitimate or dangerous. A new study published in Political Research Quarterly reveals that this divide is driven not just by party labels, but by intense dislike of political opponents, loyalty to specific party factions, and differing beliefs about what threatens democracy.

The research was conducted by Rongbo Jin at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Spencer Lindsay at the University of Arizona. They set out to investigate how preexisting political attitudes structure the way Americans evaluate two highly contentious events in recent history. Specifically, they looked at the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol.

The researchers emphasize that comparing public reactions to these two events does not mean the events are morally or qualitatively equivalent. One was a decentralized protest movement seeking racial equality, while the other was a violent attempt to halt the certification of a presidential election. Instead, the comparison serves to illustrate how the American public cognitively processes moments of intense political conflict.

In modern American politics, identifying with a political party is a deeply held social identity. This dynamic has led to a rise in affective polarization, a term describing the phenomenon where Democrats and Republicans not only disagree on policy but actively distrust and dislike each other.

People rarely analyze political information like objective scientists. Instead, they rely on mental shortcuts called heuristics to quickly judge new information. This reliance feeds into motivated reasoning, a psychological process where people readily accept information that flatters their political group while finding reasons to reject facts that make their side look bad.

These cognitive shortcuts are heavily influenced by a person’s core values. The researchers point out that Republicans often prioritize social order and conformity, meaning they might view protests that disrupt the social order as inherently threatening. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to place a higher value on individual rights and inclusion, meaning they are more likely to view protests by marginalized groups as a necessary democratic function.

To understand how these psychological forces shaped views of the recent protests and riots, the researchers first analyzed an original survey of 1,000 adult participants. Conducted in late 2023, the survey asked respondents to evaluate the Black Lives Matter protests and the January 6 event on several dimensions, such as whether they were legal, empowering, or dangerous.

The researchers measured affective polarization by asking respondents to rate their feelings toward both major political parties on a scale from zero to one hundred, with zero being the coldest possible feeling. They also asked participants to place themselves within party factions, such as identifying as a MAGA Republican or a progressive Democrat.

The survey results demonstrated severe partisan splits, with Democrats viewing the Black Lives Matter protests favorably and January 6 negatively, while Republicans exhibited the opposite pattern. Affective polarization amplified these views, as participants who expressed the coldest feelings toward the opposing party held the most extreme evaluations of both events.

The researchers even looked at pure independents, individuals who do not formally align with either party. They found that independents who simply expressed warmer feelings toward the Democratic Party still viewed the Black Lives Matter protests more favorably. This suggests that emotional attachments shape political views even in the absence of a strict party label.

Differences also emerged within the parties themselves. Progressive Democrats evaluated the Black Lives Matter protests much more positively than establishment Democrats. On the political right, MAGA Republicans viewed January 6 much more positively and the Black Lives Matter protests much more negatively than establishment Republicans.

The survey also asked whether participants believed American democracy was currently under threat. Both Democrats and Republicans who perceived a high threat to democracy held more polarized views of these events, but they did so in opposite directions.

For Democrats, believing democracy was threatened was linked to supporting the Black Lives Matter protests and condemning January 6. For Republicans, perceiving a threat to democracy was linked to condemning the Black Lives Matter protests and viewing January 6 more favorably.

The researchers describe this as a “saving democracy” frame. When citizens believe the political system is in danger, they use that belief to justify their evaluations of controversial political actions. Depending on a person’s preexisting political loyalties, the exact same event can be interpreted as either a defense of democracy or a direct attack on it.

Next, the researchers examined data from the American National Election Studies, looking at large surveys from 2016, 2020, and 2024. This included panel data, which tracks the exact same individuals over several years to see how their attitudes shift over time. Because this secondary data set did not include questions about January 6, the researchers focused solely on evaluations of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The panel data revealed that as Republicans grew warmer toward the Democratic Party between 2016 and 2020, they also developed warmer feelings toward the Black Lives Matter movement. Conversely, when Democrats grew warmer toward Republicans, they tended to view the movement less favorably.

The researchers suggest this indicates a shift toward more moderate political positions. When individuals soften their stance toward political opponents, they may also moderate their views on highly polarizing social movements associated with the political left.

The authors note that the study relies on observational data, meaning it can only identify associations rather than establish direct cause and effect. It is possible that evaluating these historical events in a certain way actually causes people to dislike the opposing party more, rather than the other way around.

Additionally, participants were asked in 2023 to evaluate events that took place in 2020 and 2021. Their memories and interpretations may have been shaped by years of political messaging and media coverage in the interim.

Future studies might use experimental designs to better understand the exact sequence of how political identity shapes the immediate processing of breaking news. Tracking public reactions in real time could help researchers map how competing narratives take hold before partisan lines fully solidify.

The study, “Inhabiting Different Worlds: How Partisan Attitudes Shape Americans’ Evaluation of the Black Lives Matter Protests and the January 6th Insurrection,” was authored by Rongbo Jin and Spencer Lindsay.